Rapid developments in the field of DNA microarrays have lead to a number of methods for synthetic preparation of DNA. Such methods include spotting pre-synthesized oligonucleotides, photolithography using mask or maskless techniques, in situ synthesis by printing reagents, and in situ parallel synthesis on a microarray of electrodes using electrochemical deblocking of protective groups. A review of oligonucleotide microarray synthesis is provided by: Gao et al., Biopolymers 2004, 73:579. The synthetic preparation of a peptide array was originally reported in year 1991 using photo-masking techniques. This method was extended in year 2000 to include an addressable masking technique using photogenerated acids and/or in combination with photosensitizers for deblocking. Reviews of peptide microarray synthesis using photolabile deblocking are provided by: Pellois et al., J. Comb. Chem. 2000, 2:355 and Fodor et al., Science, 1991, 251:767. Spotting pre-synthesized peptides or isolated proteins has been used to create peptide arrays. A review of protein or peptide arrays is provided by: Cahill and Nordhoff, Adv. Biochem. Engin/Biotechnol. 2003, 83:177.
During the synthesis of DNA or peptides on a microarray or other substrate, each successive addition of a respective monomer (i.e., nucleotide or amino acid, respectively) involves the removal of a protecting group to allow addition of the next monomer unit. This process step is often called “deblocking.” In such a removal or deblocking step, a specific type of solution can be used that is commonly referred to as a deblocking solution, i.e., the solution deblocks the end of the chain of a DNA, peptide, or other species by removing a protective group to allow the addition of a next monomer unit. In general, protective groups can be acid-lable or base-labile, i.e., acidic conditions remove the acid-labile group and basic conditions remove the base-labile group. Additionally, some protecting groups are labile to only specific types of reagents. Alternatively, deblocking can be accomplished using photolabile-protecting groups, which can be removed by light of a certain wavelength. A review of photoremoveable protecting chemistry is provided by: Photoremovable Protecting Groups in Organic Chemistry, Pillai, Synthesis 39:1-26 (1980). Use of protective groups is a common technique in organic synthesis. Reviews of protective group chemistry are provided by: Protective Groups in Organic Synthesis, Greene, T. W. and Wuts, P. G. M., Wiley-Interscience, 1999 and Protecting Group Chemistry, Robertson, J., Oxford University Press, 2001.
Protecting groups can be removed by electrochemically generated reagents on a microarray of electrodes (e.g., electrode array) as a step in the synthesis of polymers on the microarray. In this method, protecting groups are removed only at selected electrodes by applying a potential only at the selected electrodes. In order to prevent deprotection at neighboring electrodes (i.e., “crosstalk”), the method and the solution need to confine the electrochemically generated reagents to the region immediately adjacent to the electrode undergoing deblocking. Crosstalk refers to the bleed-over of reagents generated at one electrode to another nearby electrode causing undesirable extra synthesis at that nearby electrode. Minimal crosstalk is most desirable. Where an aqueous-based deblock solution having a buffer is used, the solution likely buffers the generation of acidic or basic species to the region near the electrode and prevents diffusion of such species to adjacent electrodes. However, in organic-based deblock solutions, the mechanism of preventing crosstalk is not necessarily well understood but may involve molecular interactions that remove or pacify acidic reagent by some other species.
Protecting groups can be removed by electrochemical methods on an electrode array device as a step in the synthesis of polymers on the microarray (Montgomery, U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,093,302, 6,280,595, and 6,444,111, referred to as the “Montgomery patents” the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference herein). In the Montgomery patents, protecting groups are removed only at selected electrodes by applying a potential only at the selected electrodes. In order to prevent deprotection at neighboring electrodes (often referred to as “crosstalk”), the method and the solution need to confine the electrochemically generated reagents to the region immediately adjacent to the electrode undergoing deblocking. In the Montgomery patents, a buffered aqueous-based deblock is used. The buffer absorbs acidic or basic species generated by an activated electrode (electrochemically) so that a pH change is confined to the region near the electrode.
The Montgomery patents disclose an aqueous-based deblock solution, specifically a 0.10 M solution and a 0.05 M solution of aqueous sodium phosphate buffer. The 0.10 M buffer solution had a pH of 7.2. In addition to the examples using sodium phosphate buffer, the Montgomery patents list various aqueous buffers including acetate buffers, borate buffers, carbonate buffers, citrate buffers, HEPES buffers, MOPS buffers, phosphate buffers, TRIS buffers, and KI solutions.
Southern, U.S. Pat. No. 5,667,667 discloses an organic deblocking (non-buffering) solution consisting of triethylammonium sulfate in acetonitrile (1% v/v sulphuric acid and 3% v/v triethylamine or 0.01% v/v sulphuric acid and 0.03% v/v triethylamine). Stoicheometrically, this organic solution appeared to have excess protons. As shown in the Montgomery patents, the Southern organic solution did not isolate deblocking on the microarray and showed considerable random deblocking around an area located a considerable distance away from the active electrodes.
Southern WO/020415 discloses a different method of confinement of an active redox product. Specifically, the active redox product is generated at an active electrode by at least one quenching redox product that is generated at adjacent electrodes. However, the geometry disclosed is electrodes in parallel lines of alternating cathodes and anodes and any “synthesis” generated on a glass slide surface located above the parallel lines of electrodes. The only deblocking solution disclosed is 25 mM of benzoquinone, 25 mM of hydroquinone, and 25 mM of tetrabutylammonium hexafluorophosphate in acetonitrile.
Hammerich and Svensmark (Anodic Oxidation of Oxygen-Containing Compounds, Hammerich, O., and Svensmark, B. in Organic Electrochemistry, an introduction and guide, edited by Lund, H and Baizer, M. M., Third Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1991, pp. 615-657) disclose anodic oxidation of a hydroquinone bearing electron-withdrawing substituent under aqueous conditions, in aprotic solvents containing water, or in MeCN in the presence of pyridine. Hammerich and Svensmark further disclosed that dienones undergo acid-catalyzed rearrangement under strongly acidic conditions to reestablish hydroquinone derivatives or quinone if the reagent is water. Thus, Hammerich and Svensmark hydroquinone-benzoquinone redox deblocking system is the same as Southern WO/020415 and is prior art to Southern WO/020415.
The Montgomery electrochemical system described above works best if the buffering system is weak acid/weak base system (or a redox system). Hence the drop off in acid or base becomes exponential and is related to the pKi of the weak acid/conjugate base system. However, the Montgomery system encounters problems when the distance between electrodes is decreased (or the density of electrodes per unit area of an electrode array is increased. The extent of the proton plume will then depend upon the quantity of acid produced, the buffer capacity, and limits of diffusion (Oleinikov et al., J. Proteome Res. 2:313, 2003). Therefore, there is a need in the art to improve the system for electrochemical synthesis of oligomers when the density of electrodes is increased. The present invention was made to address this need.